<p>Patuxent, actually it is the Muslim-American vote that put Bush in office in 2000 - without the 60,000 Muslim votes he got in Florida, Gore would have won the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. The problem is that the Muslim "values" are too conservative - they are the only major minority group that tends to vote Republican. </p>
<p>Your fallacy is that you confuse extremism with Islam -- I might just as well claim that Jerry Falwell represents the viewpoint of all Christians. </p>
<p>Islam has 5 core tenets:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Shahada: There is no god worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His messenger. </p></li>
<li><p>Salat: Prayer - the practice of praying 5 times daily.</p></li>
<li><p>Zakat: The requirement that a proportion of one's wealth be set aside for those in need. </p></li>
<li><p>Observance of the fast of Ramadan for one month during the year.</p></li>
<li><p>The Hadj: the pilgrimage to Mecca.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Worshiping God, praying, and donating money to charity: I fail to see exactly what is unAmerican about those values. </p>
<p>By condemning all of Islam for the views of 1%, you are expressing a value of exclusiveness and religious prejudice which is at odds with American values of tolerance and freedom of religion that are at the core of our system of government.</p>
<p>calmom - so how does Islam deal with apostates? You want to talk about Salmon Rushdie? Yes the five pillars in the Sunni sect are part of Islam and if Islam stopped there it would be compatible with western liberal democracy. Unfortunately the sixth pillar is Jihad and sharia is totally incompatible with the sedular state.</p>
<p>I hate to buy into this oversimplification, but I think it would unjust to not join in the efforts of those CC parents who are challenging misleading statements. </p>
<p>As I understand it, most muslims DO stop at the fifth pillar. The "sixth pillar of jihad" is a minority belief, and some go so far as to consider it heretical (particularly to interpret it in the most militant sense). Jihad can also mean "personal struggle."</p>
<p>"Unfortunately the sixth pillar is Jihad and sharia is totally incompatible with the sedular state."</p>
<p>Jihad: "The word jihad actually means "struggle, strive." The Arabic root of the word is jahada "to strive for." (The Arabic word for war is "harb.") Of the two types of jihad, the lesser type is the struggle against religious or political oppression, the second and greater is the soul's struggle with evil."</p>
<p>Social Contract (John Locke): "At the end of the Second Treatise we learn about the nature of illegitimate civil governments and the conditions under which rebellion and regicide are legitimate and appropriate. As noted above, scholars now hold that the book was written during the Exclusion crisis, and may have been written to justify a general insurrection and the assassination of the king of England and his brother. The argument for legitimate revolution follows from making the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate civil government. A legitimate civil government seeks to preserve the life, health, liberty and property of its subjects, insofar as this is compatible with the public good. Because it does this it deserves obedience. An illegitimate civil government seeks to systematically violate the natural rights of its subjects. It seeks to make them illegitimate slaves. Because an illegitimate civil government does this, it puts itself in a state of nature and a state of war with its subjects. The magistrate or king of such a state violates the law of nature and so makes himself into a dangerous beast of prey who operates on the principle that might makes right, or that the strongest carries it. In such circumstances, rebellion is legitimate as is the killing of such a dangerous beast of prey. Thus Locke justifies rebellion and regicide (regarded by many during this period as the most heinous of crimes) under certain circumstances. Presumably this was the justification that was going to be offered for the killing of the King of England and his brother had the Rye House Plot succeeded."</p>
<p>How was jihad incompatible with American values again?</p>
<p>Are you arguing that secular government is an afront to Natural Law and that Nature and Nature's God has one Prophet and his name is Mohammad? If that is the case then you can justify your Jihad but I doubt strongly Locke will be of much use to you. Having experienced the wars of religion first hand he knew that Anglican, Catholic, and Dissenter could all be equally intolerant tyrants.</p>
<p>The Qur'an does not conceive of the separation of Church and state and nothing in the history of Islam supports the concept. Islam's theological arguements are all over who is in the legitimate line of succession for temporal and spiritual power. God and Ceasare are one. The Caliphate and Sharia the political apotheosis. In the West we have been there done that and found it wanting. </p>
<p>The United States were already ethnically and religiously very diverse in 1775. Only a non-sectarian union would hold together. Our forefathers were not about to relaunch the 17th century wars of religion and we in the 21st century should not invite into our society those that would. Islam can either adapt to our house rules or Muslims can back their bags and head back to sand dune they came from.</p>
<p>"Are you arguing that secular government is an afront to Natural Law and that Nature and Nature's God has one Prophet and his name is Mohammad?"</p>
<p>Way to twist my words around! My point: blowing yourself up "in the name of God" is certainly not OK by any standards; striving for personal spiritual purity is fine, even (or especially?) in America. Both fall under the name of "jihad"; to condemn "jihad" is therefore to condemn more than just terrorism. It would be better to condemn "extremism." Yes, it's just semantics, but right now we're in too volatile a world to make such careless remarks. So, "jihad," in its general sense, is just as acceptable within American society as the Buddhist path to Enlightenment and the Christian spiritual rebirth. It may not have a place in GOVERNMENT, but it is permissible, even beneficial, in SOCIETY.</p>
<p>BTW, this is not "my" jihad...I'm not a Muslim</p>
<p>"Islam can either adapt to our house rules or Muslims can back their bags and head back to sand dune they came from."
Ah yes, "join or die"...so in order to escape living in a "sand dune", they have to change their values? Sounds like blackmail to me, VERY un-American (or very American, if you're cynical)...either that, or you have something against Muslims (if you don't, then you'd better watch the way you're talking about them)</p>
<p>If your benign interpretation of Jihad were the prevalent one in Islam then Islam would not be the threat that it is. Unfortunately that interpretation is the minority view. And yes you Do have to believe certain things to be an American. We are a people of many races, religions, and customs bound together only by a shared set of values. What are those values? Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address. You cannot square the polity outlined in those documents with a theocratic state governed by Sharia law and the Qur'an. </p>
<p>If that theocratic state is what you belive in fine. But you cannot have it here. You cannot have Nation Socialism or a People's Republic or a Monarchy either. There is nothing unAmerican about telling a Muslim that Dar Al-Harb begins at the border and if he doesn't like it he should shove off and not let the door hit him in the butt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If your benign interpretation of Jihad were the prevalent one in Islam then Islam would not be the threat that it is. Unfortunately that interpretation is the minority view.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since this seems to be the main point of contradiction, and it runs counter to everything I've read/heard/been taught about Islam, do you have some reliable sources for the rest of us on this?</p>
<p>OK, let's assume that "that interpretation is the minority view". We have 1 billion Muslims in the world. Then, according to your assertion, at the very least, 500 million people take jihad to its political/religious meaning. Let's say, oh, 1% actually do something about it. 5 million militants? If that were true, wouldn't we be experiencing a lot more terrorist attacks? All in all, we've had very little in the US since 9/11 besides the whole anthrax thing, and we don't even know who did that, so...</p>
<p>Also remember that Muslim leaders constantly insist that the extremists do not reflect the majority view. Are you accusing them of conspiracy?</p>
<p>We do get out, and we do know about that...now I ask you this: who's to blame, them, or America? I mean, does the average American really act, well, American? Put aside these "American ideals" for a moment and tell me, what's the "American reality"? That's why they hate us so, and if we want to fix that, we don't do it by making them conform to "house rules" that we don't even follow half the time; we do it by fixing OURSELVES.</p>
<p>I don't much care if or why they hate us so long as they don't expect to do it on my street or in my town. Being loved is over-rated especially if it means compromising your values to do it. </p>
<p>America is rich and powerful because Americans are industrious law abiding tolerant and believe in and practice personal liberty and resposibility. Muslims are poor backward and oppressed because they are narrow minded intolerant superstitious and violent. They hate women, Jews, and homosexuals. They envy the Western world's material prosperity, a prosperity they can never attain even when blessed with natural resources because their culture and ideology are not conducive to maximizing their human potential. In that they are a lot like our friends enamored of the teachings of Marx.</p>
<p>Not all cultures, philosopies, or religions are equally conducive to the material well being and comity of societies.</p>
<p>"Americans are industrious law abiding tolerant and believe in and practice personal liberty and resposibility"</p>
<p>"Woman sues McDonald's for $50,000 because she spilled coffee on herself"
"Burglar gets himself trapped in a potential victim's garage while the owner is out on vacation, then sues the owner's insurance company, claiming that he suffered unjustly"
"Bush will drive this nation to (insert whatever you will)"
"The world will end if Kerry is elected"
Protests, protests, and more protests...glorified tantrums, if you ask me...</p>
<p>"Being loved is over-rated especially if it means compromising your values to do it."
What values? The We are hated BECAUSE we compromise are values, then have the audacity to claim that we are "industrious law abiding tolerant and believe in and practice personal liberty and resposibility"! Can you blame them for hating us for the hypocrites we are?</p>
<p>
[quote]
tanonev and hoedown - you two don't get out much do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This kind of sneering commentary contributes little to the vitality of discussion on this message board.</p>
<p>Maybe I indeed don't "get out much" because I can't find the information. When I read those articles, I saw public opinion polls about current affairs, and no information about the interpretation of "jihad," or the views on the sixth pillar of Islam. This is specifically what we were discussing and which I (politely, I might point out) asked for better information about. </p>
<p>I don't need help finding sources telling me the U.S. isn't highly regarded in the Muslim world and that some people support attacks on our country and countrymen. That's not news, even to those of us slackpjawed yokels who don't get out much. What I wanted you to share was your information about Islamic interpretations.</p>
<p>"What the heck does a woman suing McDonalds over hoy coffee have to do anything? And who said the world would end if John Kerry were elected?"</p>
<p>That woman certainly doesn't seem "industrious" or "responsible"...</p>
<p>The John Kerry comment came from some conservatives I know. My point with the Presidential candidates was that our "venerable" political process includes such lovely traditions as mudslinging and scare tactics.</p>
<p>We could probably make ourselves a lot more loved simply by, er, "compromising our values", such as our value of sex & violence (do we really need rated-R films? what about strip clubs? would getting rid of them, not by legislation, but by mutual agreement, really be compromising a value worth keeping?) and get-rich-quick schemes (dot-com, housing, frivolous lawsuits...all stuff that we could do without; after all, if we're "industrious", we don't need to stoop to these greed-motivated decimators of the economy)</p>